Johnson v. State, 114 So. 3d 1012

Johnson was convicted of aggravated assault on a law enforcement officer following a jury trial.
He appeals alleging fundamental error due to trial judge’s extensive in-court questioning and commentary in front of the jury.
The State’s closing argument is challenged, but the State concedes no error.
Key trial conduct included the judge questioning Deputy Tucker, commenting on answers, and suggesting testimony adopted by Tucker.
The judge interrupted and steered examination, and admonished parties in front of the jury during voir dire and cross-examination.
The court held the trial judge’s conduct deprived the defendant of due process and reversed for a new trial before a different judge.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did the trial judge’s active participation amount to fundamental error?	Johnson	Johnson	Yes; fundamental error.
Was the error preserved despite no contemporaneous objection?	Johnson	State	Preserved for appellate review as fundamental error.
Did the judge’s conduct violate neutrality and taint the trial’s fairness?	Johnson	State	Yes; violated impartiality.
Should the conviction be reversed and remanded for a new trial?	Johnson	State	Reversed and remanded for a new trial.

Whitfield v. State, 452 So.2d 548 (Fla. 1984) (trial court should not intimate weight of evidence or credibility)
Hamilton v. State, 109 So.2d 422 (Fla. 3d DCA 1959) (judge’s remarks may destroy trial impartiality)
Vaughn v. Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 907 So.2d 1248 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005) (impartiality and the need for contemporaneous objections to preserve issues)
Moton v. State, 659 So.2d 1269 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995) (extensive judge participation may be abuse of discretion)
Padalla v. State, 895 So.2d 1251 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (judge’s role as prosecutor can violate due process)
Gonzalez v. Mercy Hosp., Inc., 738 So.2d 955 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999) (trial court comments on evidence require reversal for new trial)